[HOME_NETWORK_TF] Minutes - 19 July 2011

available at:

also as text below.

The next call will be July 26.




       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                     Home Networking Task Force call

19 Jul 2011


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Jul/0036.html


           Russell, davidmays, Igarashi, Jan, kaz, Joseph_Scheuhammer,
           Richard_Bardini, MattH, aizu, Yosuke, Narm

           Giuseppe, Francois




      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]HNTF deadline
          2. [5]HTML5 review
          3. [6]remaining issues
      * [7]Summary of Action Items

HNTF deadline

    kaz: we'll extend the charter period by one month

    all: agree

    RESOLUTION: HNTF will extend the charter period until the end of

HTML5 review

    kaz: is anybody interested in reviewing HTML5 spec from Home
    Networking viewpoint?

    igarashi: no particular idea on HTML5

    <yosuke> [FYI: I've been reviewing the spec with some broadcasters
    from broadcasters' point of view.]

    kaz: just reviewing part of the spec is fine
    ... because the spec is huge

    matt: no specific interest

    russell: can commit
    ... HTML5 has number of options

    kaz: great

    <davidmays> there is a lot of noise on the line

    <davidmays> it is very difficult to understand

    kaz: please send a message to the IG list on your interested
    section, etc.

    <davidmays> yes the noise is gone

    <MattH> yes

    kaz: yosuke, could you please also make contribution?

    yosuke: ok

    <r> Kaz - I dont understand - is this the html5 item>???

    <r> no - I indicated we would *not* be interested!!

    <yosuke> [I'd like to mention that my/our review on HTML5 spec will
    be mainly from broadcasters' point of view, and it may not be in
    line with HNTF's point of view.]

    yosuke, ok

    RESOLUTION: Yosuke is interested in HTML5 review. Note that his
    review will be not from HNTF viewpoint but from broadcasters'

remaining issues

    kaz: first one is Igarashi's issue-24

    s/LocalLink issue-24

       [8] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/LocalLink


    <trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Local Link of web applications -- raised

    <trackbot> [9]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/24

       [9] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/24

    russell: similar to the one we submitted

    kaz: which one?

    russell: network player

    kaz: the one derived from 17?

    russell: yes

    kaz: igarashi, what do you think?

    igarashi: we may discuss what the difference is
    ... most use cases are similar
    ... not only 17 but also 15 etc.
    ... use cases on generic use cases
    ... so I'd suggest we add type of use cases first, and then talk
    about the difference between use cases
    ... ISSUE-14 is very generic
    ... and Francois asked about the difference between 14 and 24

    <r> This is objectionable in Issue 24 - Type of use case:
    Application/service agnostic APIs

    kaz: igarashi needs to modify that term to "generic"

    <r> Should be no mention - just requirements

    <r> There are generic and specific solutions deployed

    <r> W3C needs to address both

    <r> Issue 17 does this already

    <r> Issue 23 discusses support for specific deployed implementations

    kaz: russell, you're suggesting ISSUE-24 should also mention both
    the generic APIS and application-specific APIs?

    <r> Use cases should describe requirements absent implementation

    russell: yes

    igarashi: this is not solution discussion, but requirements

    <r> We think a Requirement to support Generic APIs is problematic

    <r> Generic APIs defeat interoperability!

    <r> The use case should specifically discuss Generic APIs and
    explain their impact on interoperability

    <r> This is what ISSUE-24 should do

    <r> Then what is the use-case for Issue-24?

    igarashi: what we should do first is clarify use cases

    <r> How is it different from ISSUE-17?

    <r> I think its a valid approach - The use case should clearly state
    the requirement

    <r> For generic API support

    <r> Vs standardized API support

    <r> Both seem to be valid approaches?

    <r> Maybe we should have end-user use-cases and implementation

    kaz: maybe we could ask igarashi to provide some example of generic

    igarashi: Opera's proposal is one of the possible generic APIs

    kaz: russell, did you by chance see the generic APIs proposal by
    Opera (Rich)?

    russell: had some private discussion with him

    <r> agree with you comment that discussion is out of scope for HNTF

    russell: think Opera's proposal is different from ISSUE-24...

    igarashi: that is 80% similar to my proposed use case
    ... they identify services

    russell: Opera's target is not generic API but based on existing
    ... it has binding to existing solutions like JSON

    igarashi: that (how to solve use case requirements) is a different
    level from use cases discussion itself
    ... what do you want to clarify?

    russell: need to identify which home network technology should be

    kaz: are you suggesting each use case should mention which existing
    technology should be used?

    russell: that should be guidance to the other groups
    ... would be helpful for the discussion in the other WGs

    kaz: we should concentrate on clarifying use cases and requirements
    for this HNTF charter period, and then talk about expectation for
    binding to existing standards, e.g., UPnP, DLNA.

    russell: agree
    ... and at later stage, we need to consider eco-system specific use
    cases, etc.
    ... is it possible to add eco-system specific use cases category to
    the requirements document

    kaz: we need to talk with Giuseppe as well, but should be ok
    ... could you please add some note or description to your use case
    about that point (=eco-system specific, etc.)

    russell: e.g., ISSUE-23
    ... also would like to provide some proposal for requirements
    document construction

    kaz: great

    [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [10]scribe.perl version 1.128
     ([11]CVS log)
     $Date: 2011/07/19 18:05:19 $

      [10] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [11] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:06:43 UTC